Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1701

control, N = 851

treatment, N = 851

p-value2

age

168

50.64 ± 12.49 (25 - 74)

50.80 ± 12.53 (25 - 74)

50.48 ± 12.52 (28 - 73)

0.867

Unknown

2

2

0

gender

170

0.707

f

134 (79%)

66 (78%)

68 (80%)

m

36 (21%)

19 (22%)

17 (20%)

occupation

170

0.906

day_training

4 (2.4%)

2 (2.4%)

2 (2.4%)

full_time

21 (12%)

11 (13%)

10 (12%)

homemaker

18 (11%)

8 (9.4%)

10 (12%)

other

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.4%)

part_time

32 (19%)

16 (19%)

16 (19%)

retired

41 (24%)

20 (24%)

21 (25%)

self_employ

7 (4.1%)

4 (4.7%)

3 (3.5%)

student

2 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

2 (2.4%)

t_and_e

2 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

1 (1.2%)

unemploy

41 (24%)

23 (27%)

18 (21%)

marital

170

0.977

cohabitation

1 (0.6%)

0 (0%)

1 (1.2%)

divore

19 (11%)

11 (13%)

8 (9.4%)

in_relationship

4 (2.4%)

2 (2.4%)

2 (2.4%)

married

51 (30%)

25 (29%)

26 (31%)

none

82 (48%)

40 (47%)

42 (49%)

seperation

3 (1.8%)

2 (2.4%)

1 (1.2%)

widow

10 (5.9%)

5 (5.9%)

5 (5.9%)

edu

170

0.238

bachelor

39 (23%)

15 (18%)

24 (28%)

diploma

31 (18%)

21 (25%)

10 (12%)

hd_ad

5 (2.9%)

4 (4.7%)

1 (1.2%)

postgraduate

15 (8.8%)

8 (9.4%)

7 (8.2%)

primary

12 (7.1%)

5 (5.9%)

7 (8.2%)

secondary_1_3

18 (11%)

10 (12%)

8 (9.4%)

secondary_4_5

42 (25%)

19 (22%)

23 (27%)

secondary_6_7

8 (4.7%)

3 (3.5%)

5 (5.9%)

fam_income

170

0.723

10001_12000

6 (3.5%)

2 (2.4%)

4 (4.7%)

12001_14000

10 (5.9%)

4 (4.7%)

6 (7.1%)

14001_16000

8 (4.7%)

3 (3.5%)

5 (5.9%)

16001_18000

4 (2.4%)

2 (2.4%)

2 (2.4%)

18001_20000

8 (4.7%)

6 (7.1%)

2 (2.4%)

20001_above

32 (19%)

19 (22%)

13 (15%)

2001_4000

23 (14%)

13 (15%)

10 (12%)

4001_6000

19 (11%)

7 (8.2%)

12 (14%)

6001_8000

14 (8.2%)

8 (9.4%)

6 (7.1%)

8001_10000

14 (8.2%)

7 (8.2%)

7 (8.2%)

below_2000

32 (19%)

14 (16%)

18 (21%)

medication

170

152 (89%)

76 (89%)

76 (89%)

>0.999

onset_duration

167

15.42 ± 10.44 (0 - 56)

15.80 ± 11.36 (0 - 56)

15.02 ± 9.46 (0 - 35)

0.629

Unknown

3

0

3

onset_age

165

35.40 ± 13.54 (10 - 65)

34.86 ± 12.22 (10 - 61)

35.94 ± 14.82 (14 - 65)

0.610

Unknown

5

2

3

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 1701

control, N = 851

treatment, N = 851

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

170

3.11 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.15 ± 1.24 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.17 (1 - 5)

0.657

recovery_stage_b

170

17.89 ± 2.80 (8 - 24)

17.94 ± 2.90 (8 - 24)

17.84 ± 2.72 (9 - 24)

0.806

ras_confidence

170

29.81 ± 5.27 (14 - 45)

29.34 ± 5.18 (14 - 40)

30.28 ± 5.35 (18 - 45)

0.246

ras_willingness

170

11.79 ± 2.02 (5 - 15)

11.72 ± 2.03 (5 - 15)

11.87 ± 2.03 (7 - 15)

0.624

ras_goal

170

17.41 ± 3.14 (7 - 25)

17.13 ± 3.03 (7 - 24)

17.69 ± 3.25 (11 - 25)

0.243

ras_reliance

170

13.31 ± 2.91 (5 - 20)

13.08 ± 2.83 (5 - 18)

13.54 ± 2.98 (7 - 20)

0.305

ras_domination

170

9.78 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)

9.94 ± 2.51 (3 - 15)

9.62 ± 2.38 (3 - 15)

0.398

symptom

170

29.81 ± 9.07 (14 - 56)

29.96 ± 9.46 (14 - 55)

29.65 ± 8.72 (15 - 56)

0.820

slof_work

170

22.39 ± 4.79 (10 - 30)

22.60 ± 4.39 (12 - 30)

22.19 ± 5.17 (10 - 30)

0.576

slof_relationship

170

25.32 ± 5.92 (9 - 35)

24.93 ± 5.93 (9 - 35)

25.72 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

0.387

satisfaction

170

20.48 ± 7.14 (5 - 35)

19.64 ± 6.97 (5 - 33)

21.32 ± 7.25 (5 - 35)

0.125

mhc_emotional

170

10.83 ± 3.76 (3 - 18)

10.54 ± 3.70 (3 - 17)

11.12 ± 3.81 (3 - 18)

0.318

mhc_social

170

15.05 ± 5.58 (5 - 30)

14.84 ± 5.58 (5 - 30)

15.27 ± 5.61 (5 - 29)

0.613

mhc_psychological

170

21.78 ± 6.42 (6 - 36)

21.55 ± 6.23 (7 - 36)

22.01 ± 6.63 (6 - 36)

0.643

resilisnce

170

16.39 ± 4.71 (6 - 30)

15.79 ± 4.27 (6 - 24)

17.00 ± 5.07 (6 - 30)

0.094

social_provision

170

13.50 ± 2.87 (5 - 20)

13.11 ± 2.69 (5 - 20)

13.89 ± 3.00 (5 - 20)

0.073

els_value_living

170

16.97 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)

16.64 ± 3.05 (6 - 22)

17.31 ± 3.27 (5 - 25)

0.169

els_life_fulfill

170

12.77 ± 3.36 (4 - 20)

12.26 ± 3.33 (5 - 19)

13.28 ± 3.34 (4 - 20)

0.047

els

170

29.74 ± 5.98 (9 - 45)

28.89 ± 5.79 (11 - 39)

30.59 ± 6.08 (9 - 45)

0.064

social_connect

170

26.54 ± 9.31 (8 - 48)

26.94 ± 8.91 (8 - 48)

26.13 ± 9.74 (8 - 48)

0.571

shs_agency

170

14.34 ± 5.13 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.80 (3 - 21)

14.93 ± 5.41 (3 - 24)

0.132

shs_pathway

170

15.98 ± 4.21 (3 - 24)

15.40 ± 4.20 (3 - 24)

16.55 ± 4.16 (4 - 24)

0.074

shs

170

30.31 ± 8.95 (6 - 48)

29.14 ± 8.63 (6 - 45)

31.48 ± 9.15 (7 - 48)

0.088

esteem

170

12.62 ± 1.58 (9 - 20)

12.61 ± 1.62 (9 - 18)

12.62 ± 1.56 (10 - 20)

0.962

mlq_search

170

14.84 ± 3.60 (3 - 21)

14.45 ± 3.60 (4 - 21)

15.24 ± 3.57 (3 - 21)

0.154

mlq_presence

170

13.37 ± 4.37 (3 - 21)

13.11 ± 4.11 (3 - 21)

13.64 ± 4.62 (3 - 21)

0.431

mlq

170

28.21 ± 7.11 (6 - 42)

27.55 ± 6.74 (7 - 40)

28.87 ± 7.43 (6 - 42)

0.228

empower

170

19.21 ± 4.33 (6 - 30)

18.73 ± 4.19 (9 - 30)

19.69 ± 4.43 (6 - 30)

0.147

ismi_resistance

170

14.44 ± 2.61 (5 - 20)

14.44 ± 2.35 (6 - 20)

14.45 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

0.977

ismi_discrimation

170

11.63 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)

11.80 ± 2.91 (5 - 20)

11.46 ± 3.24 (5 - 20)

0.471

sss_affective

170

10.15 ± 3.62 (3 - 18)

10.09 ± 3.56 (3 - 18)

10.20 ± 3.71 (3 - 18)

0.850

sss_behavior

170

9.85 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

9.95 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

9.74 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

0.715

sss_cognitive

170

8.40 ± 3.72 (3 - 18)

8.32 ± 3.61 (3 - 18)

8.48 ± 3.84 (3 - 18)

0.774

sss

170

28.39 ± 10.34 (9 - 54)

28.36 ± 10.17 (9 - 54)

28.42 ± 10.57 (9 - 54)

0.971

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).
## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.15

0.129

2.90, 3.41

group

control

treatment

-0.082

0.182

-0.439, 0.274

0.651

time_point

1st

2nd

0.166

0.195

-0.215, 0.548

0.395

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.351

0.283

-0.203, 0.906

0.217

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.310

17.3, 18.5

group

control

treatment

-0.106

0.439

-0.966, 0.754

0.809

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.228

0.420

-1.05, 0.596

0.589

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.827

0.612

-0.373, 2.03

0.180

Pseudo R square

0.006

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.3

0.568

28.2, 30.5

group

control

treatment

0.941

0.804

-0.634, 2.52

0.243

time_point

1st

2nd

1.29

0.583

0.146, 2.43

0.030

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.498

0.850

-1.17, 2.16

0.559

Pseudo R square

0.028

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

11.7

0.219

11.3, 12.1

group

control

treatment

0.153

0.310

-0.455, 0.761

0.623

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.139

0.242

-0.613, 0.335

0.567

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.405

0.353

-0.287, 1.10

0.255

Pseudo R square

0.007

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.1

0.344

16.5, 17.8

group

control

treatment

0.565

0.486

-0.388, 1.52

0.247

time_point

1st

2nd

0.305

0.412

-0.503, 1.11

0.461

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.456

0.600

-0.721, 1.63

0.450

Pseudo R square

0.019

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.1

0.316

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.459

0.447

-0.416, 1.33

0.305

time_point

1st

2nd

0.412

0.353

-0.281, 1.10

0.247

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.427

0.515

-0.583, 1.44

0.410

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_domination

(Intercept)

9.94

0.258

9.43, 10.4

group

control

treatment

-0.318

0.365

-1.03, 0.399

0.386

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.103

0.329

-0.747, 0.542

0.756

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.19

0.479

0.248, 2.13

0.015

Pseudo R square

0.021

symptom

(Intercept)

30.0

0.981

28.0, 31.9

group

control

treatment

-0.318

1.387

-3.04, 2.40

0.819

time_point

1st

2nd

-1.24

0.868

-2.94, 0.462

0.157

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.463

1.267

-2.95, 2.02

0.716

Pseudo R square

0.006

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.6

0.518

21.6, 23.6

group

control

treatment

-0.412

0.733

-1.85, 1.02

0.575

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.119

0.542

-1.18, 0.943

0.827

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.449

0.791

-1.10, 2.00

0.571

Pseudo R square

0.001

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

24.9

0.635

23.7, 26.2

group

control

treatment

0.788

0.899

-0.973, 2.55

0.381

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.442

0.678

-1.77, 0.886

0.516

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.682

0.989

-1.26, 2.62

0.492

Pseudo R square

0.008

satisfaction

(Intercept)

19.6

0.775

18.1, 21.2

group

control

treatment

1.68

1.096

-0.466, 3.83

0.127

time_point

1st

2nd

0.810

0.764

-0.687, 2.31

0.292

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.646

1.115

-1.54, 2.83

0.564

Pseudo R square

0.022

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.5

0.404

9.75, 11.3

group

control

treatment

0.576

0.571

-0.542, 1.70

0.314

time_point

1st

2nd

0.482

0.394

-0.291, 1.25

0.225

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.334

0.575

-1.46, 0.793

0.563

Pseudo R square

0.006

mhc_social

(Intercept)

14.8

0.626

13.6, 16.1

group

control

treatment

0.435

0.885

-1.30, 2.17

0.623

time_point

1st

2nd

0.840

0.683

-0.498, 2.18

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.099

0.996

-2.05, 1.85

0.921

Pseudo R square

0.005

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.711

20.2, 22.9

group

control

treatment

0.459

1.006

-1.51, 2.43

0.649

time_point

1st

2nd

1.12

0.769

-0.388, 2.63

0.149

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.240

1.122

-2.44, 1.96

0.831

Pseudo R square

0.006

resilisnce

(Intercept)

15.8

0.497

14.8, 16.8

group

control

treatment

1.21

0.703

-0.166, 2.59

0.086

time_point

1st

2nd

0.790

0.564

-0.315, 1.90

0.165

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.06

0.822

-0.549, 2.67

0.199

Pseudo R square

0.045

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.1

0.309

12.5, 13.7

group

control

treatment

0.788

0.437

-0.069, 1.65

0.073

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.450

0.355

-1.15, 0.246

0.208

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.725

0.518

-0.290, 1.74

0.165

Pseudo R square

0.034

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.6

0.346

16.0, 17.3

group

control

treatment

0.671

0.490

-0.289, 1.63

0.172

time_point

1st

2nd

0.311

0.373

-0.420, 1.04

0.406

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.197

0.544

-0.870, 1.26

0.719

Pseudo R square

0.016

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

12.3

0.356

11.6, 13.0

group

control

treatment

1.02

0.503

0.038, 2.01

0.043

time_point

1st

2nd

0.523

0.342

-0.147, 1.19

0.130

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.144

0.499

-1.12, 0.834

0.774

Pseudo R square

0.025

els

(Intercept)

28.9

0.646

27.6, 30.2

group

control

treatment

1.69

0.913

-0.096, 3.48

0.065

time_point

1st

2nd

0.858

0.593

-0.305, 2.02

0.152

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.044

0.866

-1.74, 1.65

0.960

Pseudo R square

0.023

social_connect

(Intercept)

26.9

1.018

24.9, 28.9

group

control

treatment

-0.812

1.439

-3.63, 2.01

0.573

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.175

0.963

-2.06, 1.71

0.856

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.59

1.406

-5.34, 0.169

0.069

Pseudo R square

0.016

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.550

12.7, 14.8

group

control

treatment

1.19

0.778

-0.336, 2.71

0.128

time_point

1st

2nd

0.407

0.540

-0.652, 1.46

0.454

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.430

0.788

-1.11, 1.97

0.587

Pseudo R square

0.020

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

15.4

0.443

14.5, 16.3

group

control

treatment

1.15

0.627

-0.075, 2.38

0.067

time_point

1st

2nd

0.727

0.445

-0.145, 1.60

0.106

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.440

0.650

-1.71, 0.833

0.500

Pseudo R square

0.019

shs

(Intercept)

29.1

0.948

27.3, 31.0

group

control

treatment

2.34

1.340

-0.286, 4.97

0.082

time_point

1st

2nd

1.13

0.916

-0.667, 2.92

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.025

1.337

-2.64, 2.59

0.985

Pseudo R square

0.020

esteem

(Intercept)

12.6

0.162

12.3, 12.9

group

control

treatment

0.012

0.229

-0.436, 0.460

0.959

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.059

0.257

-0.563, 0.444

0.818

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.152

0.373

-0.579, 0.884

0.684

Pseudo R square

0.001

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.4

0.385

13.7, 15.2

group

control

treatment

0.788

0.545

-0.279, 1.86

0.149

time_point

1st

2nd

0.773

0.454

-0.117, 1.66

0.092

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.860

0.662

-2.16, 0.437

0.197

Pseudo R square

0.010

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.1

0.467

12.2, 14.0

group

control

treatment

0.529

0.661

-0.766, 1.83

0.424

time_point

1st

2nd

0.689

0.492

-0.276, 1.65

0.165

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.136

0.718

-1.54, 1.27

0.850

Pseudo R square

0.007

mlq

(Intercept)

27.6

0.767

26.0, 29.1

group

control

treatment

1.32

1.085

-0.808, 3.44

0.226

time_point

1st

2nd

1.45

0.825

-0.171, 3.06

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.963

1.203

-3.32, 1.40

0.426

Pseudo R square

0.010

empower

(Intercept)

18.7

0.465

17.8, 19.6

group

control

treatment

0.965

0.657

-0.323, 2.25

0.144

time_point

1st

2nd

0.899

0.468

-0.018, 1.82

0.058

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.07

0.682

-2.41, 0.263

0.119

Pseudo R square

0.010

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.276

13.9, 15.0

group

control

treatment

0.012

0.390

-0.754, 0.777

0.976

time_point

1st

2nd

0.040

0.349

-0.644, 0.724

0.909

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.646

0.508

-0.351, 1.64

0.207

Pseudo R square

0.009

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

11.8

0.340

11.1, 12.5

group

control

treatment

-0.341

0.481

-1.28, 0.602

0.479

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.062

0.439

-0.922, 0.797

0.887

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.567

0.639

-1.82, 0.685

0.377

Pseudo R square

0.011

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.1

0.393

9.32, 10.9

group

control

treatment

0.106

0.556

-0.984, 1.20

0.849

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.081

0.393

-0.852, 0.690

0.836

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.09

0.574

-2.21, 0.038

0.061

Pseudo R square

0.012

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

9.95

0.406

9.16, 10.7

group

control

treatment

-0.212

0.574

-1.34, 0.913

0.713

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.287

0.400

-1.07, 0.497

0.475

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.413

0.584

-1.56, 0.731

0.481

Pseudo R square

0.006

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.32

0.398

7.54, 9.10

group

control

treatment

0.165

0.563

-0.939, 1.27

0.770

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.015

0.435

-0.868, 0.837

0.972

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.980

0.634

-2.22, 0.264

0.126

Pseudo R square

0.008

sss

(Intercept)

28.4

1.116

26.2, 30.6

group

control

treatment

0.059

1.578

-3.03, 3.15

0.970

time_point

1st

2nd

-0.443

1.025

-2.45, 1.57

0.667

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-2.26

1.497

-5.20, 0.671

0.134

Pseudo R square

0.008

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.35) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.15 (95% CI [2.90, 3.41], t(241) = 24.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.27], t(241) = -0.45, p = 0.651; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.23])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.55], t(241) = 0.85, p = 0.393; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.91], t(241) = 1.24, p = 0.214; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.76])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.49) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.94 (95% CI [17.33, 18.55], t(241) = 57.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.97, 0.75], t(241) = -0.24, p = 0.809; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.05, 0.60], t(241) = -0.54, p = 0.588; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.21])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.03], t(241) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.34 (95% CI [28.23, 30.45], t(241) = 51.64, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.52], t(241) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [0.15, 2.43], t(241) = 2.21, p = 0.027; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.03, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.17, 2.16], t(241) = 0.59, p = 0.558; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.72 (95% CI [11.29, 12.15], t(241) = 53.40, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.76], t(241) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.34], t(241) = -0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.17])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.10], t(241) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.55])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.13 (95% CI [16.46, 17.80], t(241) = 49.84, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.52], t(241) = 1.16, p = 0.245; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.48])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.50, 1.11], t(241) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.63], t(241) = 0.76, p = 0.448; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.08 (95% CI [12.46, 13.70], t(241) = 41.43, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.33], t(241) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.46])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.10], t(241) = 1.17, p = 0.244; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.44], t(241) = 0.83, p = 0.408; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.94 (95% CI [9.43, 10.45], t(241) = 38.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.40], t(241) = -0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.17])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.54], t(241) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [0.25, 2.13], t(241) = 2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.50, 95% CI [0.11, 0.90])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.96 (95% CI [28.04, 31.89], t(241) = 30.55, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-3.04, 2.40], t(241) = -0.23, p = 0.819; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.26])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-2.94, 0.46], t(241) = -1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.02], t(241) = -0.37, p = 0.715; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.60 (95% CI [21.58, 23.62], t(241) = 43.61, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.85, 1.02], t(241) = -0.56, p = 0.574; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.94], t(241) = -0.22, p = 0.826; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.10, 2.00], t(241) = 0.57, p = 0.570; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.42])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.93 (95% CI [23.68, 26.17], t(241) = 39.23, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.97, 2.55], t(241) = 0.88, p = 0.380; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.44])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.77, 0.89], t(241) = -0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.68, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.62], t(241) = 0.69, p = 0.491; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.64 (95% CI [18.12, 21.15], t(241) = 25.33, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.47, 3.83], t(241) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.81, 95% CI [-0.69, 2.31], t(241) = 1.06, p = 0.289; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-1.54, 2.83], t(241) = 0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.91e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.54 (95% CI [9.75, 11.33], t(241) = 26.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.58, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.70], t(241) = 1.01, p = 0.313; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.45])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.25], t(241) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.79], t(241) = -0.58, p = 0.562; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.84 (95% CI [13.61, 16.06], t(241) = 23.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.30, 2.17], t(241) = 0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.38])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.50, 2.18], t(241) = 1.23, p = 0.219; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-2.05, 1.85], t(241) = -0.10, p = 0.920; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.84e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.16, 22.95], t(241) = 30.31, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-1.51, 2.43], t(241) = 0.46, p = 0.648; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.37])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.63], t(241) = 1.46, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.40])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-2.44, 1.96], t(241) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.79 (95% CI [14.81, 16.76], t(241) = 31.76, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-0.17, 2.59], t(241) = 1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.56])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.90], t(241) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.41])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.67], t(241) = 1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.58])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.50, 13.71], t(241) = 42.38, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.65], t(241) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.15, 0.25], t(241) = -1.27, p = 0.205; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.08])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.74], t(241) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.64 (95% CI [15.96, 17.31], t(241) = 48.05, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.63], t(241) = 1.37, p = 0.171; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.51])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.42, 1.04], t(241) = 0.83, p = 0.404; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.26], t(241) = 0.36, p = 0.718; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.26 (95% CI [11.56, 12.96], t(241) = 34.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [0.04, 2.01], t(241) = 2.03, p = 0.042; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [0.01, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.52, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.19], t(241) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.83], t(241) = -0.29, p = 0.773; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.89 (95% CI [27.63, 30.16], t(241) = 44.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.69, 95% CI [-0.10, 3.48], t(241) = 1.86, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.30, 2.02], t(241) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.65], t(241) = -0.05, p = 0.960; Std. beta = -7.34e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.94 (95% CI [24.95, 28.94], t(241) = 26.47, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-3.63, 2.01], t(241) = -0.56, p = 0.573; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.21])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-2.06, 1.71], t(241) = -0.18, p = 0.855; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.18])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.59, 95% CI [-5.34, 0.17], t(241) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.02])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.66, 14.82], t(241) = 24.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.19, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.71], t(241) = 1.53, p = 0.126; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.65, 1.46], t(241) = 0.75, p = 0.451; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.29])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.97], t(241) = 0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.39])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.40 (95% CI [14.53, 16.27], t(241) = 34.75, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.15, 95% CI [-0.08, 2.38], t(241) = 1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.15, 1.60], t(241) = 1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-1.71, 0.83], t(241) = -0.68, p = 0.498; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.14 (95% CI [27.28, 31.00], t(241) = 30.74, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-0.29, 4.97], t(241) = 1.75, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.57])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.92], t(241) = 1.23, p = 0.218; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-2.64, 2.59], t(241) = -0.02, p = 0.985; Std. beta = -2.86e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is moderate (conditional R2 = 0.24) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.69e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.61 (95% CI [12.29, 12.93], t(241) = 78.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.46], t(241) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 7.96e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.31])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44], t(241) = -0.23, p = 0.817; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.58, 0.88], t(241) = 0.41, p = 0.683; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.63) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.45 (95% CI [13.69, 15.20], t(241) = 37.51, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.86], t(241) = 1.45, p = 0.148; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.66], t(241) = 1.70, p = 0.089; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.44], t(241) = -1.30, p = 0.194; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.12])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.49e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.11 (95% CI [12.19, 14.02], t(241) = 28.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.83], t(241) = 0.80, p = 0.423; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.43])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.28, 1.65], t(241) = 1.40, p = 0.162; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.27], t(241) = -0.19, p = 0.850; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.30])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.55 (95% CI [26.05, 29.06], t(241) = 35.93, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.81, 3.44], t(241) = 1.21, p = 0.224; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.45, 95% CI [-0.17, 3.06], t(241) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.96, 95% CI [-3.32, 1.40], t(241) = -0.80, p = 0.424; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.20])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.73 (95% CI [17.82, 19.64], t(241) = 40.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.32, 2.25], t(241) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.53])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.82], t(241) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-4.15e-03, 0.43])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.26], t(241) = -1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.57) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.44 (95% CI [13.89, 14.98], t(241) = 52.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.75, 0.78], t(241) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 4.61e-03, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.72], t(241) = 0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.28])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.64], t(241) = 1.27, p = 0.204; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.64])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.80 (95% CI [11.13, 12.47], t(241) = 34.67, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-1.28, 0.60], t(241) = -0.71, p = 0.478; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.19])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.80], t(241) = -0.14, p = 0.887; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.25])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.82, 0.69], t(241) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.22])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.09 (95% CI [9.32, 10.86], t(241) = 25.68, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.98, 1.20], t(241) = 0.19, p = 0.849; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.33])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.69], t(241) = -0.21, p = 0.836; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.19])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.04], t(241) = -1.89, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.01])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.13e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.16, 10.75], t(241) = 24.53, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.34, 0.91], t(241) = -0.37, p = 0.712; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.24])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.07, 0.50], t(241) = -0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.13])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.73], t(241) = -0.71, p = 0.479; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.19])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.32 (95% CI [7.54, 9.10], t(241) = 20.88, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.27], t(241) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.34])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.84], t(241) = -0.04, p = 0.972; Std. beta = -4.14e-03, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.98, 95% CI [-2.22, 0.26], t(241) = -1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.60, 0.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.11e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.36 (95% CI [26.18, 30.55], t(241) = 25.41, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-3.03, 3.15], t(241) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 5.66e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-2.45, 1.57], t(241) = -0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.15])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.26, 95% CI [-5.20, 0.67], t(241) = -1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.06])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

785.519

796.048

-389.760

779.519

recovery_stage_a

random

6

784.516

805.573

-386.258

772.516

7.003

3

0.072

recovery_stage_b

null

3

1,203.044

1,213.572

-598.522

1,197.044

recovery_stage_b

random

6

1,206.842

1,227.898

-597.421

1,194.842

2.202

3

0.532

ras_confidence

null

3

1,477.575

1,488.103

-735.787

1,471.575

ras_confidence

random

6

1,469.085

1,490.141

-728.542

1,457.085

14.490

3

0.002

ras_willingness

null

3

1,005.286

1,015.814

-499.643

999.286

ras_willingness

random

6

1,009.155

1,030.212

-498.578

997.155

2.130

3

0.546

ras_goal

null

3

1,241.717

1,252.246

-617.859

1,235.717

ras_goal

random

6

1,242.040

1,263.097

-615.020

1,230.040

5.677

3

0.128

ras_reliance

null

3

1,192.841

1,203.370

-593.421

1,186.841

ras_reliance

random

6

1,190.976

1,212.032

-589.488

1,178.976

7.866

3

0.049

ras_domination

null

3

1,112.276

1,122.804

-553.138

1,106.276

ras_domination

random

6

1,108.871

1,129.928

-548.436

1,096.871

9.404

3

0.024

symptom

null

3

1,717.133

1,727.661

-855.566

1,711.133

symptom

random

6

1,717.700

1,738.757

-852.850

1,705.700

5.432

3

0.143

slof_work

null

3

1,420.968

1,431.497

-707.484

1,414.968

slof_work

random

6

1,426.398

1,447.455

-707.199

1,414.398

0.570

3

0.903

slof_relationship

null

3

1,525.600

1,536.128

-759.800

1,519.600

slof_relationship

random

6

1,529.813

1,550.870

-758.907

1,517.813

1.787

3

0.618

satisfaction

null

3

1,618.111

1,628.639

-806.056

1,612.111

satisfaction

random

6

1,616.867

1,637.923

-802.433

1,604.867

7.244

3

0.065

mhc_emotional

null

3

1,289.631

1,300.159

-641.815

1,283.631

mhc_emotional

random

6

1,293.210

1,314.266

-640.605

1,281.210

2.421

3

0.490

mhc_social

null

3

1,522.000

1,532.528

-758.000

1,516.000

mhc_social

random

6

1,525.222

1,546.278

-756.611

1,513.222

2.778

3

0.427

mhc_psychological

null

3

1,584.836

1,595.364

-789.418

1,578.836

mhc_psychological

random

6

1,587.394

1,608.450

-787.697

1,575.394

3.442

3

0.328

resilisnce

null

3

1,426.704

1,437.232

-710.352

1,420.704

resilisnce

random

6

1,416.950

1,438.006

-702.475

1,404.950

15.754

3

0.001

social_provision

null

3

1,185.665

1,196.194

-589.833

1,179.665

social_provision

random

6

1,184.143

1,205.199

-586.071

1,172.143

7.523

3

0.057

els_value_living

null

3

1,229.943

1,240.471

-611.972

1,223.943

els_value_living

random

6

1,231.330

1,252.386

-609.665

1,219.330

4.613

3

0.202

els_life_fulfill

null

3

1,229.911

1,240.439

-611.956

1,223.911

els_life_fulfill

random

6

1,228.478

1,249.534

-608.239

1,216.478

7.433

3

0.059

els

null

3

1,517.865

1,528.393

-755.932

1,511.865

els

random

6

1,516.612

1,537.668

-752.306

1,504.612

7.253

3

0.064

social_connect

null

3

1,747.834

1,758.362

-870.917

1,741.834

social_connect

random

6

1,745.602

1,766.659

-866.801

1,733.602

8.232

3

0.041

shs_agency

null

3

1,446.293

1,456.822

-720.147

1,440.293

shs_agency

random

6

1,446.714

1,467.771

-717.357

1,434.714

5.579

3

0.134

shs_pathway

null

3

1,343.322

1,353.850

-668.661

1,337.322

shs_pathway

random

6

1,343.376

1,364.432

-665.688

1,331.376

5.946

3

0.114

shs

null

3

1,713.417

1,723.945

-853.708

1,707.417

shs

random

6

1,713.460

1,734.517

-850.730

1,701.460

5.956

3

0.114

esteem

null

3

895.695

906.223

-444.848

889.695

esteem

random

6

901.451

922.507

-444.726

889.451

0.244

3

0.970

mlq_search

null

3

1,294.262

1,304.790

-644.131

1,288.262

mlq_search

random

6

1,296.124

1,317.180

-642.062

1,284.124

4.139

3

0.247

mlq_presence

null

3

1,374.045

1,384.573

-684.023

1,368.045

mlq_presence

random

6

1,376.375

1,397.431

-682.187

1,364.375

3.670

3

0.299

mlq

null

3

1,622.284

1,632.813

-808.142

1,616.284

mlq

random

6

1,623.860

1,644.917

-805.930

1,611.860

4.424

3

0.219

empower

null

3

1,366.131

1,376.659

-680.065

1,360.131

empower

random

6

1,367.106

1,388.162

-677.553

1,355.106

5.025

3

0.170

ismi_resistance

null

3

1,138.401

1,148.929

-566.200

1,132.401

ismi_resistance

random

6

1,140.737

1,161.794

-564.369

1,128.737

3.664

3

0.300

ismi_discrimation

null

3

1,243.500

1,254.028

-618.750

1,237.500

ismi_discrimation

random

6

1,246.604

1,267.661

-617.302

1,234.604

2.895

3

0.408

sss_affective

null

3

1,285.567

1,296.095

-639.784

1,279.567

sss_affective

random

6

1,283.653

1,304.709

-635.826

1,271.653

7.914

3

0.048

sss_behavior

null

3

1,294.711

1,305.239

-644.355

1,288.711

sss_behavior

random

6

1,297.167

1,318.224

-642.584

1,285.167

3.544

3

0.315

sss_cognitive

null

3

1,301.030

1,311.558

-647.515

1,295.030

sss_cognitive

random

6

1,302.340

1,323.397

-645.170

1,290.340

4.689

3

0.196

sss

null

3

1,787.408

1,797.937

-890.704

1,781.408

sss

random

6

1,786.968

1,808.025

-887.484

1,774.968

6.440

3

0.092

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

85

3.15 ± 1.19

85

3.07 ± 1.19

0.651

0.085

recovery_stage_a

2nd

41

3.32 ± 1.16

-0.172

36

3.59 ± 1.16

-0.534

0.310

-0.277

recovery_stage_b

1st

85

17.94 ± 2.86

85

17.84 ± 2.86

0.809

0.052

recovery_stage_b

2nd

41

17.71 ± 2.69

0.112

36

18.43 ± 2.67

-0.293

0.240

-0.353

ras_confidence

1st

85

29.34 ± 5.24

85

30.28 ± 5.24

0.243

-0.344

ras_confidence

2nd

41

30.63 ± 4.47

-0.471

36

32.07 ± 4.38

-0.653

0.155

-0.526

ras_willingness

1st

85

11.72 ± 2.02

85

11.87 ± 2.02

0.623

-0.134

ras_willingness

2nd

41

11.58 ± 1.77

0.121

36

12.14 ± 1.74

-0.232

0.165

-0.487

ras_goal

1st

85

17.13 ± 3.17

85

17.69 ± 3.17

0.247

-0.287

ras_goal

2nd

41

17.43 ± 2.85

-0.155

36

18.45 ± 2.81

-0.387

0.116

-0.519

ras_reliance

1st

85

13.08 ± 2.91

85

13.54 ± 2.91

0.305

-0.274

ras_reliance

2nd

41

13.49 ± 2.56

-0.246

36

14.38 ± 2.51

-0.501

0.127

-0.529

ras_domination

1st

85

9.94 ± 2.38

85

9.62 ± 2.38

0.386

0.201

ras_domination

2nd

41

9.84 ± 2.19

0.065

36

10.71 ± 2.17

-0.686

0.082

-0.550

symptom

1st

85

29.96 ± 9.04

85

29.65 ± 9.04

0.819

0.079

symptom

2nd

41

28.73 ± 7.40

0.307

36

27.95 ± 7.19

0.422

0.640

0.193

slof_work

1st

85

22.60 ± 4.78

85

22.19 ± 4.78

0.575

0.161

slof_work

2nd

41

22.48 ± 4.10

0.047

36

22.52 ± 4.02

-0.130

0.968

-0.015

slof_relationship

1st

85

24.93 ± 5.86

85

25.72 ± 5.86

0.381

-0.247

slof_relationship

2nd

41

24.49 ± 5.06

0.138

36

25.96 ± 4.97

-0.075

0.200

-0.460

satisfaction

1st

85

19.64 ± 7.15

85

21.32 ± 7.15

0.126

-0.470

satisfaction

2nd

41

20.45 ± 6.03

-0.226

36

22.77 ± 5.89

-0.407

0.088

-0.651

mhc_emotional

1st

85

10.54 ± 3.72

85

11.12 ± 3.72

0.314

-0.313

mhc_emotional

2nd

41

11.02 ± 3.13

-0.261

36

11.27 ± 3.06

-0.080

0.731

-0.132

mhc_social

1st

85

14.84 ± 5.77

85

15.27 ± 5.77

0.623

-0.135

mhc_social

2nd

41

15.67 ± 5.02

-0.260

36

16.01 ± 4.93

-0.230

0.768

-0.104

mhc_psychological

1st

85

21.55 ± 6.56

85

22.01 ± 6.56

0.649

-0.126

mhc_psychological

2nd

41

22.67 ± 5.69

-0.308

36

22.89 ± 5.59

-0.242

0.865

-0.060

resilisnce

1st

85

15.79 ± 4.58

85

17.00 ± 4.58

0.086

-0.453

resilisnce

2nd

41

16.58 ± 4.04

-0.295

36

18.85 ± 3.98

-0.693

0.014

-0.851

social_provision

1st

85

13.11 ± 2.85

85

13.89 ± 2.85

0.073

-0.467

social_provision

2nd

41

12.66 ± 2.53

0.267

36

14.17 ± 2.49

-0.163

0.009

-0.897

els_value_living

1st

85

16.64 ± 3.19

85

17.31 ± 3.19

0.172

-0.381

els_value_living

2nd

41

16.95 ± 2.77

-0.177

36

17.81 ± 2.72

-0.289

0.167

-0.493

els_life_fulfill

1st

85

12.26 ± 3.28

85

13.28 ± 3.28

0.043

-0.641

els_life_fulfill

2nd

41

12.78 ± 2.75

-0.327

36

13.66 ± 2.68

-0.237

0.156

-0.551

els

1st

85

28.89 ± 5.95

85

30.59 ± 5.95

0.065

-0.613

els

2nd

41

29.75 ± 4.92

-0.310

36

31.40 ± 4.79

-0.295

0.138

-0.597

social_connect

1st

85

26.94 ± 9.38

85

26.13 ± 9.38

0.573

0.181

social_connect

2nd

41

26.77 ± 7.82

0.039

36

23.37 ± 7.62

0.614

0.055

0.756

shs_agency

1st

85

13.74 ± 5.07

85

14.93 ± 5.07

0.128

-0.470

shs_agency

2nd

41

14.15 ± 4.27

-0.161

36

15.77 ± 4.17

-0.331

0.094

-0.640

shs_pathway

1st

85

15.40 ± 4.09

85

16.55 ± 4.09

0.067

-0.552

shs_pathway

2nd

41

16.13 ± 3.47

-0.348

36

16.84 ± 3.39

-0.137

0.363

-0.342

shs

1st

85

29.14 ± 8.74

85

31.48 ± 8.74

0.082

-0.547

shs

2nd

41

30.27 ± 7.33

-0.263

36

32.59 ± 7.15

-0.258

0.162

-0.541

esteem

1st

85

12.61 ± 1.49

85

12.62 ± 1.49

0.959

-0.009

esteem

2nd

41

12.55 ± 1.48

0.046

36

12.72 ± 1.48

-0.072

0.627

-0.126

mlq_search

1st

85

14.45 ± 3.55

85

15.24 ± 3.55

0.149

-0.365

mlq_search

2nd

41

15.22 ± 3.17

-0.358

36

15.15 ± 3.13

0.040

0.920

0.033

mlq_presence

1st

85

13.11 ± 4.31

85

13.64 ± 4.31

0.424

-0.228

mlq_presence

2nd

41

13.79 ± 3.71

-0.297

36

14.19 ± 3.64

-0.239

0.639

-0.170

mlq

1st

85

27.55 ± 7.07

85

28.87 ± 7.07

0.226

-0.339

mlq

2nd

41

29.00 ± 6.13

-0.372

36

29.35 ± 6.01

-0.124

0.798

-0.091

empower

1st

85

18.73 ± 4.28

85

19.69 ± 4.28

0.144

-0.440

empower

2nd

41

19.63 ± 3.64

-0.410

36

19.52 ± 3.56

0.080

0.893

0.050

ismi_resistance

1st

85

14.44 ± 2.55

85

14.45 ± 2.55

0.976

-0.007

ismi_resistance

2nd

41

14.48 ± 2.33

-0.024

36

15.13 ± 2.31

-0.409

0.216

-0.392

ismi_discrimation

1st

85

11.80 ± 3.14

85

11.46 ± 3.14

0.479

0.161

ismi_discrimation

2nd

41

11.74 ± 2.90

0.030

36

10.83 ± 2.87

0.298

0.169

0.430

sss_affective

1st

85

10.09 ± 3.62

85

10.20 ± 3.62

0.849

-0.057

sss_affective

2nd

41

10.01 ± 3.07

0.044

36

9.03 ± 3.00

0.634

0.158

0.532

sss_behavior

1st

85

9.95 ± 3.74

85

9.74 ± 3.74

0.713

0.113

sss_behavior

2nd

41

9.67 ± 3.16

0.153

36

9.04 ± 3.08

0.374

0.381

0.334

sss_cognitive

1st

85

8.32 ± 3.67

85

8.48 ± 3.67

0.770

-0.080

sss_cognitive

2nd

41

8.30 ± 3.20

0.007

36

7.49 ± 3.14

0.484

0.261

0.397

sss

1st

85

28.36 ± 10.29

85

28.42 ± 10.29

0.970

-0.012

sss

2nd

41

27.92 ± 8.51

0.093

36

25.72 ± 8.28

0.566

0.251

0.461

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(228.07) = -0.45, p = 0.651, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.28)

2st

t(235.77) = 1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.79)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(213.98) = -0.24, p = 0.809, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.97 to 0.76)

2st

t(233.19) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.93)

ras_confidence

1st

t(191.13) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.64 to 2.53)

2st

t(240.85) = 1.43, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.43)

ras_willingness

1st

t(195.55) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.76)

2st

t(238.43) = 1.39, p = 0.165, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.23 to 1.35)

ras_goal

1st

t(201.82) = 1.16, p = 0.247, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.52)

2st

t(235.49) = 1.58, p = 0.116, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.29)

ras_reliance

1st

t(196.56) = 1.03, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.34)

2st

t(237.90) = 1.53, p = 0.127, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.25 to 2.03)

ras_domination

1st

t(207.26) = -0.87, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.40)

2st

t(233.87) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.85)

symptom

1st

t(184.38) = -0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-3.05 to 2.42)

2st

t(242.98) = -0.47, p = 0.640, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-4.06 to 2.50)

slof_work

1st

t(192.23) = -0.56, p = 0.575, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.86 to 1.03)

2st

t(240.26) = 0.04, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.86)

slof_relationship

1st

t(193.42) = 0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.56)

2st

t(239.60) = 1.28, p = 0.200, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.79 to 3.73)

satisfaction

1st

t(189.06) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.48 to 3.84)

2st

t(241.88) = 1.71, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-0.35 to 5.01)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(188.57) = 1.01, p = 0.314, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.70)

2st

t(242.09) = 0.34, p = 0.731, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.63)

mhc_social

1st

t(194.84) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.31 to 2.18)

2st

t(238.81) = 0.30, p = 0.768, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.90 to 2.57)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(194.28) = 0.46, p = 0.649, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.44)

2st

t(239.12) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.32 to 2.76)

resilisnce

1st

t(197.53) = 1.72, p = 0.086, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.17 to 2.60)

2st

t(237.40) = 2.48, p = 0.014, Cohen d = -0.85, 95% CI (0.47 to 4.08)

social_provision

1st

t(198.44) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.65)

2st

t(236.95) = 2.64, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (0.39 to 2.64)

els_value_living

1st

t(194.07) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.64)

2st

t(239.24) = 1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(187.84) = 2.03, p = 0.043, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (0.03 to 2.02)

2st

t(242.38) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.10)

els

1st

t(185.86) = 1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.50)

2st

t(242.92) = 1.49, p = 0.138, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.53 to 3.83)

social_connect

1st

t(187.14) = -0.56, p = 0.573, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.65 to 2.03)

2st

t(242.62) = -1.93, p = 0.055, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-6.87 to 0.07)

shs_agency

1st

t(188.86) = 1.53, p = 0.128, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.72)

2st

t(241.97) = 1.68, p = 0.094, Cohen d = -0.64, 95% CI (-0.28 to 3.52)

shs_pathway

1st

t(190.01) = 1.84, p = 0.067, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.39)

2st

t(241.43) = 0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.25)

shs

1st

t(188.09) = 1.75, p = 0.082, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.30 to 4.99)

2st

t(242.29) = 1.40, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.94 to 5.57)

esteem

1st

t(234.76) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.44 to 0.46)

2st

t(238.53) = 0.49, p = 0.627, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.83)

mlq_search

1st

t(200.43) = 1.45, p = 0.149, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.86)

2st

t(236.05) = -0.10, p = 0.920, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.49 to 1.35)

mlq_presence

1st

t(192.65) = 0.80, p = 0.424, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.83)

2st

t(240.03) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.05)

mlq

1st

t(193.93) = 1.21, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.46)

2st

t(239.32) = 0.26, p = 0.798, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-2.38 to 3.08)

empower

1st

t(190.11) = 1.47, p = 0.144, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.33 to 2.26)

2st

t(241.38) = -0.13, p = 0.893, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.73 to 1.51)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(206.60) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.78)

2st

t(234.02) = 1.24, p = 0.216, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.70)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(208.55) = -0.71, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.61)

2st

t(233.63) = -1.38, p = 0.169, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-2.20 to 0.39)

sss_affective

1st

t(189.82) = 0.19, p = 0.849, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.99 to 1.20)

2st

t(241.52) = -1.42, p = 0.158, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-2.35 to 0.38)

sss_behavior

1st

t(189.06) = -0.37, p = 0.713, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.34 to 0.92)

2st

t(241.88) = -0.88, p = 0.381, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.03 to 0.78)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(194.91) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.95 to 1.28)

2st

t(238.78) = -1.13, p = 0.261, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.61)

sss

1st

t(185.86) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-3.06 to 3.17)

2st

t(242.92) = -1.15, p = 0.251, Cohen d = 0.46, 95% CI (-5.98 to 1.57)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(120.34) = 2.51, p = 0.027, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.11 to 0.93)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(106.35) = 1.34, p = 0.366, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.48)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(89.24) = 2.88, p = 0.010, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (0.55 to 3.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(92.24) = 1.03, p = 0.611, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.78)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(96.71) = 1.73, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.63)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(92.94) = 2.23, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.59)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(100.83) = 3.10, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.78)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(84.86) = -1.84, p = 0.139, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.54 to 0.14)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(89.98) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.82 to 1.48)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(90.79) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.20 to 1.67)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(87.88) = 1.79, p = 0.154, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.16 to 3.07)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(87.56) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.69 to 0.98)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(91.76) = 1.02, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.18)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(91.37) = 1.07, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.75 to 2.51)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(93.62) = 3.09, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.66 to 3.05)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(94.27) = 0.73, p = 0.939, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.48 to 1.03)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(91.22) = 1.28, p = 0.409, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.30)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(87.08) = 1.04, p = 0.601, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.10)

els

1st vs 2st

t(85.81) = 1.29, p = 0.403, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.44 to 2.07)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(86.63) = -2.69, p = 0.017, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-4.80 to -0.72)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(87.75) = 1.45, p = 0.299, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.31 to 1.98)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(88.50) = 0.60, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.66 to 1.23)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(87.24) = 1.13, p = 0.523, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.84 to 3.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(129.32) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.63)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(95.69) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.05 to 0.87)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(90.26) = 1.05, p = 0.589, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.49 to 1.59)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(91.13) = 0.55, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.26 to 2.23)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(88.57) = -0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.17 to 0.81)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(100.33) = 1.85, p = 0.136, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.42)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(101.85) = -1.35, p = 0.361, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(88.38) = -2.79, p = 0.013, Cohen d = 0.63, 95% CI (-2.00 to -0.34)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(87.88) = -1.64, p = 0.208, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.15)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(91.80) = -2.15, p = 0.069, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-1.92 to -0.07)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(85.81) = -2.48, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-4.88 to -0.53)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(114.61) = 0.85, p = 0.794, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.22 to 0.55)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(102.55) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.06 to 0.61)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(87.64) = 2.21, p = 0.060, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.13 to 2.45)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(90.28) = -0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.34)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(94.18) = 0.74, p = 0.925, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.13)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(90.89) = 1.16, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.12)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(97.77) = -0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.76 to 0.55)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(83.78) = -1.42, p = 0.316, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-2.97 to 0.49)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(88.29) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.96)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(89.00) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.79 to 0.91)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(86.44) = 1.06, p = 0.586, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.33)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(86.16) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.30 to 1.27)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(89.85) = 1.23, p = 0.446, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.20)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(89.51) = 1.45, p = 0.300, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.65)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(91.48) = 1.40, p = 0.332, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.91)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(92.05) = -1.26, p = 0.419, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.26)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(89.38) = 0.83, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.43 to 1.06)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(85.74) = 1.53, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.20)

els

1st vs 2st

t(84.62) = 1.44, p = 0.305, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.32 to 2.04)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(85.34) = -0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-2.09 to 1.74)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(86.33) = 0.75, p = 0.909, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.67 to 1.48)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(86.99) = 1.63, p = 0.214, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.61)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(85.88) = 1.23, p = 0.445, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.95)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(122.34) = -0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.45)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(93.29) = 1.70, p = 0.186, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.68)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(88.54) = 1.40, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.67)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(89.30) = 1.75, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.20 to 3.09)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(87.05) = 1.92, p = 0.117, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.83)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(97.32) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.66 to 0.73)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(98.65) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.81)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(86.88) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.87 to 0.70)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(86.44) = -0.72, p = 0.953, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.51)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(89.89) = -0.03, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.85)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(84.62) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-2.49 to 1.60)

Plot

Clinical significance